California OAH special education order · July 23, 2025
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2025051107 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied Natomas' motion to consolidate without prejudice because Student's pending motion to quash service of Natomas' email-only complaint left unclear whether Natomas' case is properly pending.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Natomas Unified School District in May 2025, and Natomas filed its own complaint against Student in July 2025 and moved to consolidate the two cases. Student opposed and separately moved to quash service, arguing Natomas served its complaint by email only. OAH denied consolidation without prejudice. If service was improper, Natomas' case is not properly pending, so there would be nothing to consolidate until the motion to quash is decided.
Why it matters
A parent can challenge improper service of a district's complaint, such as email-only service, and that challenge can hold up the district's effort to merge its case with the parent's case. Districts must serve properly before seeking consolidation.
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025051107
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
JULY 23, 2025
On May 27, 2025, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025051107, Student’s Case, naming Natomas Unified School District.
On July 15, 2025, Natomas filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025070607, Natomas’ Case, naming Student.
On July 18, 2025, Student filed a Motion to Quash Service in Natomas’ Case, and an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate, arguing that Natomas’ complaint was improperly served by email only. The Motion to Quash is still pending.
If service in Natomas’ Case was improper, then Natomas’ Case is not properly pending before OAH, and there is thus no basis for this Motion to Consolidate. The Motion is therefore denied at this time without prejudice, pending resolution of whether Natomas’ Case is properly pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings